Let’s make genetically modified food open-source

July 10, 2013

March against Monsanto (credit: Rosalee Yagihara/Wikimedia Commons)

If Monsanto is the Microsoft of food supply, perhaps the time has come for the agricultural equivalent of Linux, the open-source operating system that made computer programming a communal effort, Slate suggests.

“GMO agriculture relies on the relatively new science of bioinformatics (a mixture of bio- and information science), which means that DNA sequences look a lot more like software code than a vegetable garden,” says Slate.

“Genetically modified crops as we know them have as a general rule increased agriculture’s reliance on a system of expensive “inputs” — agro-speak for the proprietary seeds and herbicides that have brought untold profits to multinationals such as Monsanto and Dow.

“The reputation of transgenic crops has tanked, as what was once a harbinger of green technology is now commonly perceived as a source of genetic pollution and has thus become anathema for many environmentalists.

“Open-source GMO is a new idea for food justice activists, who have been concentrating their efforts on depleting Monsanto’s market share through consumer advocacy and political reform.

“Labeling laws for genetically modified organisms in the retail foodstream are about to land in statehousesacrossthe country. But genetic modification does not equal Monsanto and Pioneer. The time has come to separate the dancer from the dance and admit that it is possible to be against big-agriculture and for scientific advancement.”

UPDATE July 10, 2013:

“It’s easy to knock big agriculture, but they’re a product of the business and market landscape,” says KurzweilAI Biotechnology Editor and noted synthetic biology expert Andrew Hessel. “Open source food crop biotech is possible and would almost certainly be a good thing. It’s unlikely to disrupt the big Ag companies in the short term, but it could see scientific communities organize and develop products that with sufficient R&D could enter the market.

“This said, open source food genetics will have to abide by the same regulatory barriers as the larger players, and farmers would have to choose to use them. Acceptance and successful competition is not assured simply because the modifications are transparent.

Having just read through all 29 comments, I’m am once again surprised and disheartened to discover that even on this website, people just don’t get it. You debaters (both sides) lock onto a single issue or topic and then argue for or against it as if it exists in isolation. None of the arguments takes into consideration any of the disruptive technologies or social changes happening elsewhere that will have a direct effect and impact upon the GMO debate. GMO is part of our evolution, folks. Good side and bad side. But the bad will be offset by solutions from cross-discipline technologies and social changes, as has been happening throughout the past century. Stop worrying. Address the challenges logically, intelligently, and free of dogmatic ideology and you’ll see an entirely different set of opportunities in front of you.

‘GMO is part of our evolution’ no, it’s nothing to do with evolution, it’s man thinking he’s so damn clever he can do anything, and it must be ok if he chooses, since he’s infallible. Your attempt to marginalise and infantilize those who are opposed to transgenic genes being released into the escosphere is abuse of argument, and while claiming you’re all for intelligent debate, you contribute nothing to it except sneers.
Perhaps you just don’t get why environmentalists are opposed? It’s because novel genes that would never, could never have existed in evolution are being released into the biosphere without any research, or even calm thinking, into the likely, or possible effects. Chemists aren’t the best people to make decisions on ecology, they haven’t studied it, and don’t understand it. Their focus is narrow and aimed at profit-making for their employers. The fact that no benefits have so far acrued from GM plants is because they never were intended to contribute either to our helth of feeding the starving, but to ensuring huge profits for Monsanto and others by locking farmers into using patented seeds along with their corresponding pesticides and herbicides; the GMOs are not affected by ever harsher drenching while ‘weeds’ are wiped out.
Your statement that ‘the bad will be offset by solutions from cross-discipline technologies and social changes’ sounds totally complacent, how exactly will uncontrolled gene release be controlled post dissemination by technology or social change exactly? Sounds like a trite, dismissive attitude to those you regard as dogmatic, ie. differing opinion from yours.
Please don’t patronise with ‘stop worrying’ and address the very real concerns that many people have about GMOs. This might help you understand better – http://www.soilassociation.org/gm

In metaphor, this is a Mel Gibson Road Warrior scenario versus a Harrison Ford Blade Runner. On balance, a blue state-red state question of the individual or group as first choice.
Both have assets and liabilities, but the group was first choice even in the choices the first amino acids made as progress toward complex life unfolded.
Trust, but verify. If one distrusts government, one might look at ways to improve this work in progress. Say campaign finance reform for a start. Nobody should think the Federalist Papers implied government had reached its apogee, using a term slightly out of context to convey the idea that there is no other choice than to work with the idea that some form of commonality is part of the human condition.
Existential leaps required…i trust Ray. It is based on information. And i also believe there are spouses that trust the person they sleep with and are sadly mistaken. The irony is part of the beauty of the living human condition.

It is very simple, control of the food suppy…period! Everything and everybody be damned. The arrogrance and greed for power and control go forward according to plan….it is right in front of us for all to see.

Open source genetic modifications might be one of the most important things to happen if it takes off, and along with other forms of the democratization of science and technology may be one of the most potentially liberating things that could happen. These things must be taken out of the hands of corporate and state power and given to the people! It is utterly foolish for it to remain primarily with those who are literally the last who should have it, people who are literally legally required to pursue profits no matter the external cost.
Information is power, the information that codes for life is most especially an example of this, and all power should be to the people and their communities freed from the ravages of global economic imperialism!

Love the Monsanto shills, who even seem to frequent singularity sites.

Wjr, I must say your response is very convincing. It is so detailed and intelligent, that I am a convert. Let’s continue to let for-profit entities patent life. Hey, maybe one of your great-great designer grand-children will have a nice “M” stamped on it’s head.

I am a shrill of Monsanto and I can confirm we are trying to control the food supply. We are trying to make food that will control your mind. We will be able to force the entire world population to do our bidding.
I fear for my life telling you this. Please re-post my comments for the world to see.

Forgive my asking for some clarification on your statement, but how is it dangerous for all people to equally benefit from scientific breakthrough (and nobody ever said anything about Marxism.) In fact the only danger I can possibly imagine is to your Monsanto stock shares. Good day sir.

I don’t own Monsanto shares and I am not a shill for them. I don’t particularly care one way or another about them. I do care about the extreme recklessness that so many of you neo-flower children exhibit about a technology that can either greatly serve or greatly destroy. Again, this is not the Internet. If some idiot trashes the net there will be consequences but we will survive. If some thumb fingered dolt plays bad games with this then we could all see an unpleasant singularity. This is not a high probability but it is quite possible and, given Murphy’s Law ….

BTW, Seek…s last line is a paraphrase from Das Capital. I am surprised (not) that you did not pick that up.

Actually, Scooter, I hold a Ph.D. in biophysics and I have been a practicing scientist for many years. Scooter, use your head and try to understand that companies don’t matter in this debate. Try to focus on the important bit here: we are about to open Pandora’s box. There will be wonderful things in there but there will also be very great dangers as well.

This has nothing to do with profit or social justice. It has to do with caution and keeping a potentially very dangerous thing out of the hands of the malicious or, more likely, inept bio-hacker.

My thoughts have a lot more in common with Bakunin than Marx actually, and I find that Bakunin and similar are quite the opposite of stale; in fact they show one of the only ways we can get a society truly worth living in, and go further than that to the possibility of a society worth dedicating oneself to. I honestly share your concerns about the power of biology, but am opposed to top-down solutions to it. In fact, top-down solutions are the absolute worst thing to do because they put decision making power into the absolute worst, most worthless and disgusting people. So it has everything to do with social justice because centralized regulation is the arch-enemy of anything vaguely resembling social justice.

Oh good! So I am not speaking to an inept. So then, wjr, how do you state that “companies don’t matter in this debate”, when in fact Monsanto has been bullying farmers who just happen to have GMO contamination in their fields, along with using other scurrilous tactics to maintain the majority market-share in this industry? How do you ignore the fact that many studies on glyphosate are revealing its deleterious effects on mammals, fish, and soil ecology (which helps maintain our food supply)? And while I know the scientific community seems to condemn the French “rat tumor” study, when I read the critic responses, I see that many of them revolve around picky technicalities.

Look man, I have been harsh with you, no doubt. But to say on one hand that you wish to avoid “biohackers”, while seemingly ignoring the glaring problems with a corporate-controlled food supply, seems.. one-sided and naïve. This is not conspiracy theory; the facts are out there for anyone who wants to look. (PubMed searches do wonders)

Let’s not even consider the fact that we are ingesting foreign proteins (from GMO foods), and that they may indeed have a long term effect on us. If nothing else, consider the fact that glyphosate (RoundUp) is a STRONG chelator of multiple metal cations. Now imagine what taking that into us, might do, over time? Make no mistake, it is present in measurable levels, in our food. Furthermore, glyphosate has been found to have xeno-estrogenic properties.

Scooter, none of this makes any difference. Venal human nature ensures that your approach will lead lead to chaos. Organizations — of whatever form — can at least be moderated and are more susceptible to rational control. Anarchy, by definition, is beyond control. This is fire that we are playing with and we have no Prometheus to blame this on.

The anarchist answer might be: “Get your hands off my food. I’ll grow whatever I like.” That of course ignores airborne and other contamination of seeds and crops.

Future news report?

Widespread contamination of U.S. corn, soybeans and other crops by DIY GMO genetically engineered varieties is threatening the purity of organic and natural food products. Biotech crops, primarily corn, soybeans, cotton and canola, have genes that have been manipulated to express specific traits, most commonly a resistance to herbicide, which helps farmers. Biotech developers such as Monsanto Co patent the crop technology and tightly control use of the seed. But mixing of biotech crops and conventional crops can occur during many phases of harvest, storage and shipment of grain, and drifting pollen and other natural forces can also contaminate crops while they are still in the fields. Indeed, contamination of conventional crops by biotech crops has been reported around the world. There were 39 cases of crop contamination in 23 countries in 2007, and more than 200 in 57 countries over the last 10 years, according to biotech critic Greenpeace International…. — Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/12/us-biotech-crops-contamination-idUSN1216250820080312, Mar 12, 2008 (only “DIY GMO” added)

There’s also early research coming in that animals fed on GM maize are being affected:
‘A ground-breaking study, published today, June 12, 2013 (1), shows that animals are harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified (GM) crops.
The research results were striking, showing that the weight of the uterus in GM-fed pigs was on average 25% higher than in the control group of pigs. The finding was biologically and statistically significant. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the GM diet. These animals were 2.6 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation than control pigs.’ http://oneradionetwork.com/latest/new-study-shows-that-animals-are-seriously-harmed-by-eating-gm-crops-article/

That’s the answer an individualist anarchist might give, yes. Though even they would a.probably be against patents in the first place, see Benjamin Tucker and his concerns about the four monopolies and b.would also suggest that such contamination can be considered an invasion and so something one can seek redress for. So instead of a company being able to complain about patent infringement from such contamination, instead the company would be opening itself to be sued.

The more socialist anarchists on the other hand would ask the questions in terms of “how should we grow our food” and in this case it would be a matter to be discussed in congresses of everyone directly involved in agriculture(including those involved in biological research). There is likely to be disagreement about what plans of action, but if they can’t be resolved trying to implement more than one thing at the same time isn’t necessarily bad-don’t put all your eggs in one basket and all that. The fact that by the means of the industrial congresses everyone will be acutely aware of their responsibility to each other, along with a total lack of a profit motive(which encourages abuse), would allow for such a society to be horizontally self-regulating. Since in such a society the means of production are either owned collectively or are outright considered to be in the commons, and this includes the equipment for biological research, anyone would have the opportunity to learn biology in a similar manner to DIY biologists today with safety concerns taken care of on a collective basis by the people doing the work within the lab-it’s entirely likely and reasonable for people in such a place to vote that any newcomer must demonstrate competence under supervision before being allowed to do their own work(life-long education is often brought up as something that would be encouraged in, say, an anarcho-syndicalist society). Issues of contamination would be just one more thing to be discussed and methods of action decided upon among these congresses of the people and considering the concerns people have in this society for the safety of such I don’t see it as something people would be lax about, likely much less so than in todays profit-driven society.
I would say splitting over honest, well-intentioned disagreement over what is the best way to go about things is a lot better than “everyone screws over everyone else as far as they can get away with it”. In general, an anarchist will say that the natural equilibrium to be created in a society where no one is over any others-without rulers-will always be superior to the rigidly enforced structures that a statist capitalist society lead to.

Your response is banal, and simply lacking in logic. I do not disagree with the notion that GMOs will eventually become safe, but I DO disagree with allowing control of the food supply, and perhaps (patented) life-forms, in the hands of a monstrous for-profit organization, that has already displayed misanthropic behavior in the past (all for the bottom line).

Either respond to my points, or disengage. Obfuscation will not help you, here.

Not only that, the sentence had the same turgid speech patterns of Das Kapital. I read that book, then thought it had a translation problem; …learned German, … and it was *worse* in the original! The run-on sentences that list one trope after another instead of completing a thought are another German trait. So, …Seek, …you sure you dinna spricht deutsch?

You sir or madam nned to seek some education. That old left-right sneering is so last century and in this case extremely stupid and off topic. Why do Americans have to see absolutely everything as left versus right? Aren’t you capable of making your own mind up by thinking rather than rallying round your silly flags?
Sheesh!

Editor,
Let me suggest an alternative hypothesis. If we spool forward in time a bit (exceedingly difficult for bureaucrats, I admit), we are talking about something as profound as nuclear power. We can and will manipulate the very programming of life. This is not UNIX to open source or hacking a game or even hacking the Iranians. This is an existentially threatening technology.

What could possibly go wrong with opening this up to the semi-compentent? I mean no one will abuse this, right? Well, think about a world entirely covered with super kudzu. What a glorious ending for the smart ape.

We need the technology and it is going to happen no matter what we do but we need to control it, test it as it evolves and moderate the impact. Research in this area needs to be licensed and closely monitored. Economic incentives are needed to fund the research thus patents. However, such patents, while acknowledged, should never be published.

I may be a libertarian but I am not a fool. Encouraging an “open source” approach to this “code” courts disaster by fool. Open source is like handing matches to a four year old.

I don’t want to have to pay a licence fee for every biohack that I’m going to want to do in the future. It’s code some will be open source some won’t but the precedents were setting,legally, are going to look really dumb in 10-20 yrs

Eventually the arguments against genetically modified organisms will seem quaint and naive. The opportunities presented by GMO techniques are a planetary-scale game-changer. It is not GMO per se that is the problem, it is power-grabbing adverse corporate policies. A GMO open-source movement is exactly what is needed to balance against such adverse corporate policies. An open-source GMO movement will also ensure the availability of these technologies to the widest specrum of humanity.

Eventually the arguments for GMO will appear dangerously naive and unconnected. You could be right about the game changer, trouble is which way will it change the game? Any idea how transgenic spores can be removed from the atmosphere when it’s found they are helping breed super weeds which nothing can kill?
There are no opportunities presented, if there had been we’d have heard about them, rather than all the lies, recently repeated by Patterson straight from the Monsanto PR guide book; GM will feed the hungry [how exactly when organic yields are higher?] GM will stop children going blind [unspecified how this miracle will be managed, presumably loaves and fishes come into it]. Fact is, GM is for the company developing and patenting it to increase profits by sewing up farmers into deals whre they become permanent customers. They have even tried suing organic farmers whose crops have been contaminated – for breach of their patent! You couldn’t make it up. Monsanto have behaved for decades like the CIA; disinformation, bullying, surveillance and interference.
The idea of making it open source appals me despite the possibility of dissing Monsanto. At least when harms are caused they can be prosecuted. How could anyone know who was responsible for a release when it could have been anyone?

Mother Nature knows best. But this planet has already, IMO, been ruined by GMO’s and many other misdeeds in the name of greed and profit. I am, unless convinced substantially otherwise, the GMO’s are not in the best interests of mankind. Instead of battling to feed those who are starving. How about a viable plan to reduced reproduction (like contraception). I see no future in the continued pollution of this planet by either overpopulation or genetic modification. We are not (yet) capable of imitating Mother Nature without creating substantial harm to the “victims” of “experimental” technology. Our planet is currently not on the path to real sustainability.

I still wonder why so many are completely unable to separate GMOs from Monsanto’s corporate policies. The questionable practice of making plants that produce their own herbicide toxins does not mean genetic modification can’t create more benign improvements, but too many are caught in the hysteria and label all GMO food as forever evil, despite the fact that more resilient, better yield, easier to cultivate foodstock is our best hope to feed the world.

This is an excellent idea. It will shift control of this technology from the wealthier countries of the world, where people can afford to fuss endlessly over laws, patents, political influence and personal preferences, towards the poorer countries that actually need the technology to feed their people.

‘[...] poorer countries that actually need the technology to feed their people.’

How are they going to do that? Since the technology hasn’t so far shown any increased yield over non GM crops, and is less than organic yield, I’m curious how you think this. Since they have been farming for thousands of years, it’s just a bit patronising to think ‘clever’ western chemists can do anything to help them. They both know their soil, their climate and what works. Admittedly climate is changing, but so far GM hasn’t come up with anything to combat that.

Dear me, here we have encapsulated the techno-smashit mindset and its distain for those whose awareness and attitude is more nurturing. ‘idiot enviro Luddites’ has a nice sneery ring to it, but means nothing really, since those opposed to GM aren’t against progress at all, just this subject, and with plenty of justification. As for ‘naive flower child left’ apart from being a really silly insult and not even close to actuality, but it does illustrate your mindset though. Perhaps you should consider how these naive people actually realised the damage being done to the environment when the rest of the population were dreaming of the good life, getting rich, building a pension, profiting from house price rises, and driving their cars at every opportunity. So-called [by the media] hippies were the first environmentalists, and every issue they highlighted has grown in importance over the decades until even politicians had to take notice. Remember lead in petrol? Environmentalists got it removed so children were no longer mentally harmed by breathing it in off the streets. It took years of campaigning, demanding lead free petrol from garages, writing to oil companies, and persuading people they didn’t need lead to stop knocks in their car engines. Naive?
There are many other issues where environmentalists, or hippies, or flower children or idiot enviros if you will, drew attention to issues of importance. Remember the ozone hole above Europe every winter? Now almost closed because we got CFCs banned. Of course the rest of the world outside Europe carried on using them, with the result that the whole ozone layer round the planet is now thinner than it’s ever been. Thus the burn of white skins continues.
So who’s naive? Who’s an idiot?

BTW, your comments about hippies is, well, priceless. The vast majority of these stupid children were hippies for a summer. Pot and sex hedonism. They had no more philosophy or social awareness than most teenagers.

At the end of summer most went home to eventually rejoin the mainstream. A few died from drugs and even fewer went off to find Mother Nature. Most of these hurriedly left Mother Nature when that found out that she was a bitch to deal with. A very few became political junkies of the left.

Oh, and by the way, don’t count on ecologists to save the world. The ones that I know could not save themselves. Their real element is faculty party discussions where they try to ascend the moral high ground.

The only thing that’s “hopelessly naive” is trusting a marketplace predator like Monsanto with the unregulated, unquestioning and unlabeled release of irreversible genetic modifications on the biosphere.

I think some commenters may have difficulty with the idea that the story is not about the prominent things in GMO work, but about the things not being noticed, and seeking to reinforce them. For instance, there are farmer groups in India already making their own GMO crops, both wheat and cotton, and possibly rice. They want to talk about what is prominent. because it is easy to see what they consider a plausible solution, which I frankly never quite see them laying out completely. IMHO, that may be because their vision of a problem, control by a single hierarchy, is dissolving already.

Abuse of argument. If that’s all you have, you have no argument. Do you even know who the Luddites were? I realise it’s shorthand for anyone who cautions against a change you’re in favour of, but Ludd saw clearly that the new machines were going to wipe out all the self-employed spinners and weavers working from their own homes, and turn them into wage slaves for rich capitalists in deafening factories spewing out pollution. Some progress huh? Of course they lost, they had no power. But they lost more than just the argument.